What if $BUSD as a security was a red herring all along?
Stay with me for a minute.
Looking at the case law, unless there are facts we are unaware of, it would be very challenging and nothing short of legal gymnastics to even attempt to argue $BUSD on Paxos is a security.
The caselaw can be found here. Everyone is looking at the Howey Test, but the real meat of the matter is likely to be covered by a different case Reves Et Al. v. Ernst & Young found here:
But bear in mind, a Wells notice is merely a formal letter informing the recipient of an intention to litigate and providing an opportunity for the respondent to provide cause as to why the @SECGov should not proceed.
@NYDFS gets wind of the @SECGov looking to litigate @PaxosGlobal and immediately recognizes that it's the @binance-branded $BUSD product on #Paxos that's problematic - instructs Paxos to no longer mint the stuff.
That means only one thing, $BUSD is literally a reverse Hotel California, you can't check-in anytime you like, you can only leave.
$BUSD market cap can only go one way - zero.
Because @binance took the decision to convert all $USDT, $USDC and all other #stablecoin balances automatically to $BUSD (and to be fair, there was an opt-out option), the bulk of trading pairs on #Binance are tied to $BUSD.
Which would lead to a predictable fallout, $BUSD leaves @binance and with it, trading volume, which would necessarily affect $BNB, which is what's led to the recent sharp fall in $BNB.
Customers cash out their $BUSD and sell $BNB leading to a self-fulfilling death spiral.
Users lose confidence in $BUSD and because $BUSD flows are larger than other flows on #Binance, this undermines Binance as an exchange, which undermines confidence in $BNB.
The US has already cut #Binance's banking facilities by forcing $SI and $SBNY to sever ties, same in Europe and other jurisdictions as well.
Binance can't get access to $USD to keep churning its exchange, now it can't get access to USD via $BUSD as well.
Even without a single affidavit being filed, the @SECGov may have already been able to accomplish its mission of knee-capping @binance with nothing more than a Wells notice.
Was that the goal to begin with?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It depends - it's important to recognize the QUALITATIVE difference between $BUSD on the #ethereum#blockchain that is issued by @PaxosGlobal and regulated by the @NYDFS and the stuff that exists on the #BNBChain.
And boy is there a HUGE difference.
Just because #Paxos can't mint anymore $BUSD, doesn't mean that it's worthless, it ought to be redeemable (possibly at a discount) but not for zero.
$BUSD on the #BNBChain is an entirely different story.
Remember, $BUSD that's on the BNB Beacon Chain or BNB Smart Chain...
is supposed to be backed by $BUSD in the attestation wallets on #Ethereum with the equivalent #Paxos product.
So while Paxos can't mint anymore $BUSD, there's technically nothing stopping @binance from minting as much $BUSD as it likes on other blockchains.
Should the dollar in your bank account be qualitatively different than the George Washington in your wallet?
Even if the denominations are the same?
Even when it comes to the fiat currency that we're used to, it can be argued that cash in the hand "feels" different from the money we have in our bank accounts.
But their effect is the same.
Outside of the first US$250,000 in FDIC insured deposits, everything else is risk.
When @binance started minting $BUSD on the #Binance Chain (now called BNB Beacon Chain) and the Binance Smart Chain (now called BNB Smart Chain) no one really peeked beneath the hood to see that these were QUALITATIVELY different from the $BUSD associated with @PaxosGlobal